Biocanna not exactly ideal for cannabis???

  • Thread starter BobaJob
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
It's P def I suspect. for three reasons 1) The leaves in natural light look extreamly green, but, the last time one of my plants were that green I got the claw, and apparently with P def reaaaaly green leaves can/will happen 2) the NPK rations from what I can tell are down on P, and the issue only really started as soon as I flipped to flower, 3 the leaves are exactly as like the illustrations I have seen. and even 4) seeing as RNA & DNA are linked closely with P, (they use it to communicate) and P is a major player in cell division and I have some malformed leaves here and there, I'm leaning towards P def.


I would love to take pictures to show you but it will have to wait because of my situation - it is night time hear and if i start fucking about opening things up I will light s**t up like a f*****g Christmas tree in the dead of night - probably not a good idea lol
 
az2000

az2000

965
143
however you have to bare in mind that not all fluids are the same and maybe there's a mistake that hydro growers are making? 'water' is 1 tonne per qubic meter, but the mass of the ferts are going to be different, so the same rules will not apply

I do that in my spreadsheet. I have a place to specify the "liquid density" (the weight and volume of a liquid product.).

But, I still don't understand the %-volume way of saying how much N, P and K (etc) a product has. If 1kg of a product has 10% of N (by volume), then 100g is N. That's 10% of the weight. But, companies who sell a product with both labels (percent weight and percent volume) show different numbers. So, there's something else happening. It's like you have to know that it's a 1L product, and it has 100ml (10% by volume), then know how much 100ml of N weighs (it's atomic mass? because they all weigh differently). It seems like there should be a calculator somewhere that figures it out.

It's not important, really. I've always been perplexed about it because it seems like such an obfuscated way to the info you really need (what good is % volume? It seems like you'd always want % weight. It just is harder to get to.).

It's P def I suspect. for three reasons 1) The leaves in natural light look extreamly green,

That's what I suspected. Dark green leaves, especially if their glossy, curled down around the edges (not just the tips). If you've got that happening, I'd bet my money on overfeeding (now to the point of lockout). Especially if you haven't been getting runoff (essentially pouring the runoff back in).

It sounds like you don't have a ppm meter, and/or haven't been measuring the strength of what you feed (and the starting water ppm)? That would help to know that. If the ppms (minus water ppms) were up in the 700ppm range, I'd definitely bet on overfeeding, salt buildup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ina
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
I do that in my spreadsheet. I have a place to specify the "liquid density" (the weight and volume of a liquid product.).

But, I still don't understand the %-volume way of saying how much N, P and K (etc) a product has. If 1kg of a product has 10% of N (by volume), then 100g is N. That's 10% of the weight. But, companies who sell a product with both labels (percent weight and percent volume) show different numbers. So, there's something else happening. It's like you have to know that it's a 1L product, and it has 100ml (10% by volume), then know how much 100ml of N weighs (it's atomic mass? because they all weigh differently). It seems like there should be a calculator somewhere that figures it out.

It's not important, really. I've always been perplexed about it because it seems like such an obfuscated way to the info you really need (what good is % volume? It seems like you'd always want % weight. It just is harder to get to.).



That's what I suspected. Dark green leaves, especially if their glossy, curled down around the edges (not just the tips). If you've got that happening, I'd bet my money on overfeeding (now to the point of lockout). Especially if you haven't been getting runoff (essentially pouring the runoff back in).

It sounds like you don't have a ppm meter, and/or haven't been measuring the strength of what you feed (and the starting water ppm)? That would help to know that. If the ppms (minus water ppms) were up in the 700ppm range, I'd definitely bet on overfeeding, salt buildup.


The problem is, or one of them is that we have to 1st convert imperial to metric.. and I can't be arsed lol. The japs have done something quite clever in the way the use certain sized nuts/bolts when putting cars together. over here we use metric and so 13ml is one of the standards but, you use in the US imperial. so if you try to put a good 1/2 inch spanner on a 13ml bolt it won't go, but it will on a 12ml spanner, so what they do is use n12ml instead of 13, that works for us both because we have 12ml spanners because we use metric, so it's not a problem for us, and, and then, because you use imperial a 1/2 inch spanner will fit on a 12ml... simple solution to a simple problem lol. little off topic sorry but... 1st thing to do is convert imperial to metric or vice versa lol
 
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
The problem is, or one of them is that we have to 1st convert imperial to metric.. and I can't be arsed lol. The japs have done something quite clever in the way the use certain sized nuts/bolts when putting cars together. over here we use metric and so 13ml is one of the standards but, you use in the US imperial. so if you try to put a good 1/2 inch spanner on a 13ml bolt it won't go, but it will on a 12ml spanner, so what they do is use n12ml instead of 13, that works for us both because we have 12ml spanners because we use metric, so it's not a problem for us, and, and then, because you use imperial a 1/2 inch spanner will fit on a 12ml... simple solution to a simple problem lol. little off topic sorry but... 1st thing to do is convert imperial to metric or vice versa lol


"NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both.NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station. "

Strange that ain't it... the general public in the USA use imperial but your top Science People use metric! lolol
 
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
"NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both.NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station. "

Strange that ain't it... the general public in the USA use imperial but your top Science People use metric! lolol

this is why most people are confused mate - we don't do that over here lol
 
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
like they say English and metric like they're two different things - we use metric dip shit lol
 
az2000

az2000

965
143
like they say English and metric like they're two different things - we use metric dip shit lol

As I said earlier, I don't see how metric or "imperial" units explain the usefulness of %-volume. Those are just units of measure. I could have 1 quart of product with a label saying "10% by volume Nitrogen." I would make a conscious choice to express the nitrogen content that way. If I wanted to know the weight, I would have to do some kind of conversion involving the molecular weight of nitrogen. (Or, work out all the relative volumes of all the minerals, and their proportion of the total product weight?).

Either way, what's puzzling to me: What benefit comes from expressing fertilizer as a % of volume? All the horticultural articles I've seen, talk about applying 39 pounds (or kilograms) of a mineral per acre (etc). Not 39 cups. It seems like %-volume would *always* require conversion to weight just to be useful in any manner. That's why it seems an obfuscation.

Maybe I'm missing something. And, I apologize for making so much of this topic! (It's been on my mind for *years* since creating that spreadsheet.). It seems problematic. For example, your first post talked about ratios. But, is that ratios of volumes or weights? (I've always thought ratios expressed weights, which translate directly to parts per million. Which is why I've never understood starting with % of volume. It's almost like they don't want you to know.).

I did look at the US bottles of Canna. It sounds like you're feeding 3.8ml/L Flores and 3ml/L Boost. If you used the US bottles, that would produce 307/397ppm (closer to 307). That doesn't sound strong. (Although, the lack of runoff might cause a problem.).

Photos under natural light will help. The other day someone posted photos under HPS. We were all saying "hungry, N-deficient." When they finally posted natural-light photos the leaves looks dark green.
 
BobaJob

BobaJob

96
18
As I said earlier, I don't see how metric or "imperial" units explain the usefulness of %-volume. Those are just units of measure. I could have 1 quart of product with a label saying "10% by volume Nitrogen." I would make a conscious choice to express the nitrogen content that way. If I wanted to know the weight, I would have to do some kind of conversion involving the molecular weight of nitrogen. (Or, work out all the relative volumes of all the minerals, and their proportion of the total product weight?).

Either way, what's puzzling to me: What benefit comes from expressing fertilizer as a % of volume? All the horticultural articles I've seen, talk about applying 39 pounds (or kilograms) of a mineral per acre (etc). Not 39 cups. It seems like %-volume would *always* require conversion to weight just to be useful in any manner. That's why it seems an obfuscation.

Maybe I'm missing something. And, I apologize for making so much of this topic! (It's been on my mind for *years* since creating that spreadsheet.). It seems problematic. For example, your first post talked about ratios. But, is that ratios of volumes or weights? (I've always thought ratios expressed weights, which translate directly to parts per million. Which is why I've never understood starting with % of volume. It's almost like they don't want you to know.).

I did look at the US bottles of Canna. It sounds like you're feeding 3.8ml/L Flores and 3ml/L Boost. If you used the US bottles, that would produce 307/397ppm (closer to 307). That doesn't sound strong. (Although, the lack of runoff might cause a problem.).

Photos under natural light will help. The other day someone posted photos under HPS. We were all saying "hungry, N-deficient." When they finally posted natural-light photos the leaves looks dark green.


Hello again


This is interesting. If I remember correctly you said my plants looked a little Mg def??? I thought the same thing myself but apparently, if there is a shortage Mg in the fist place (I use an activated carbon filter on my water so I think it's safe to presume that Ca and Mg will be a little low) then low P can inhibit the uptake of Mg. I noticed that it started getting worse when I switched to flower, also red/purple leaf stems. Also, P is responsible for the timely maturation of plants and so I am assuming that because the strain is Critical + 2.0 ("Genetic interactions can vary from one species to another and even between different varieties of the same species. ") that they are using a lot of P due to the fact they mature very quickly (P is also responsible for cell division and growth as well as facilitating communication between RNA and DNA).


I've ordered some Canna Mono P. I will order some CalMag today too. I will add P with the next feed and watch to see what happens, I'm hoping that the extra P will do three things. 1) Stop more leaves dying and narcosis, 2) Allow the plant to grow to its full potential and 3) Cure the apparent slight N def.

I will keep you posted on the results


Peace
 
Last edited:
stp

stp

443
93
If you still care, check my grow journal, I’m just about to harvest. (4) plants in 5 gallon smart pots. Used BioCanna organic line all the way, never had any issues like that. Supplemented with roots organics Cal/mg for my R/o water. Used the normal feeding schedule from Canna, alternated water feeds with nutrient feeds and also mixed in several worm teas throughout the entire cycle. Full organic with exception of Cannazyme. I forgot to say, I also used Cannazyme which is not organic certified. Happy frog, hardly any Bio Vega for veg stage for almost 10 weeks (lots of rhizotonic), low stress training, switched to BioFlores & BioBoost for 12/12. Kept giving cal mg, rhizotonic, bio flores and bio boost till end of flower then dropped flores...now I’m down to boost and cal mg only, then plain water with nothing for the last week coming up.
 
bgay22

bgay22

2
1
If you still care, check my grow journal, I’m just about to harvest. (4) plants in 5 gallon smart pots. Used BioCanna organic line all the way, never had any issues like that. Supplemented with roots organics Cal/mg for my R/o water. Used the normal feeding schedule from Canna, alternated water feeds with nutrient feeds and also mixed in several worm teas throughout the entire cycle. Full organic with exception of Cannazyme. I forgot to say, I also used Cannazyme which is not organic certified. Happy frog, hardly any Bio Vega for veg stage for almost 10 weeks (lots of rhizotonic), low stress training, switched to BioFlores & BioBoost for 12/12. Kept giving cal mg, rhizotonic, bio flores and bio boost till end of flower then dropped flores...now I’m down to boost and cal mg only, then plain water with nothing for the last week coming up.

Stp? Were you testing ppm when feeding? How many mLs per gallon of each nutrient were you using?
 
stp

stp

443
93
Stp? Were you testing ppm when feeding? How many mLs per gallon of each nutrient were you using?
I tested PPM one time for a heavy feed and it didn’t even break 1000. Regular feeds were always lower than that. It worked great. Never once tested PH. I was using their schedule for normal feeding.
 
Top Bottom